AI AI, Oh Oh: Artificial Intelligence Power Consumption About to Skyrocket – And No One Is Prepared

Watt's Up With That? ^ | 15 Sept 2023 | Terry Etam

[alexander_busek]

In my province, that’s about 5 cents. Still very efficient.

Never meant to imply that your ultimate conclusion - that the brain is efficient - was incorrect. Was merely addressing what I viewed as faulty math and incorrect units.

One could answer your question - "How costly is the operation of brain?" - in a different (I think: more elegant) way:

We have established that the brain uses about 300 kilocalories per day. But the brain is not powered with electricity. Rather, ultimately, the brain oxidizes glucose to generate energy. Glucose has a current market price of approx. US$4-6 per kg. 1 kg of glucose represents 3,860 kilocalories. So the brain requires approx. 80 grams of glucose - worth some 31-47 cents - per day.

Bear in mind: That's for a brain at rest. But as I said in my previous post, the remarkable thing is that, even when engaging in intense conscious thought, the brain consumes only very slightly more energy. I haven't looked it up, but I'd venture to say that it never consumes more than, say, 5% more than at its baseline.

So, in a way, it's also very inefficient, since it's kind of like a supersonic airplane that consumes 95% of its maximum fuel requirements when just sitting on the tarmac, and only 5% more when flying at Mach 2.

Another thought: When some people eat, say, a candy bar "because it boosts their brain-power / helps them think" - it may, in reality, simply be that they are suffering a bout of low blood-sugar, which is also affecting other body functions like the blood pressure, which in turn affects the brain. So I don't think that eating a candy bar DIRECTLY helps the brain / supplies it with more needed glucose. The body always gives the brain top priority when it comes to nutrients, anyway. But if the rest of the body is somehow starved, the brain will, of course, also suffer indirectly.

Anyone: Please feel free to correct my thinking if my figures are off here! As for my other speculations: I'm just spitballing here!

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

I swear, everything posted about AI acts as if it’s a monolithic, all-knowing program of godlike proportions.

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Regards,

[Jonty30]

Thank you for correcting my reasoning.

[alexander_busek]

From the article: A computer can play Go and even beat humans…But it will take a computer something like 100 kilowatts to do so while our brains do it for just 20 watts.

ProtectOurFreedom: So the brain is 5,000 times more power efficient.

1. A laptop computer - typically consuming about 40 watts of power - loaded with the appropriate program can play chess better than any amateur player.

2. A laptop computer - typically consuming about 40 watts of power - can count the number of letters in the King James Bible, or the number of times that any given sequence of letters occurs, in a fraction of a second. A human being, tasked with the same job, would require days - over the course of which he would require thousands of times as much energy (calories).

So the question of "efficiency" is sensible only in realms in which Man and Machine perform roughly equally well. The realm in which Man is superior is shrinking.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

Thank you for correcting my reasoning.

It is exceedingly easy to shift a decimal point or, say, perform a division where, instead, a multiplication is necessary.

The confusion of "watts" or "kilowatts" with watt-hours" or "kilowatt-hours" is my personal peeve, however. I can't forgive that! /humor

Regards,

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Open the Pod Bay door Hal” 😏